kimmov wrote:40 MB less (to download) for every clone is nice saving of bandwidth and disk space.

Sounds like this is the way to go.

Yep, I think so. My current testing conversion now has some tags we've done to SVN trunk (apparently). Which don't make much sense as they are for beta/experiemental releases. If we don't have tags for releases then we don't care about beta/experimental tags either.

Though it really looks weird to have ten years of code development in the repository without any tags for releases done...

I have to check again if dropping the --datesort would really make that afwull looking repository I remember it did couple of years ago. If the repository is smaller I still prefer having sensible history in it.

gerundt wrote:Should we at the moment continue to work with SVN or wait for your conversation?

Definitely continue working with SVN!

When I have done more testing conversions and we have decided how to continue then we can decide about schedule and practices for the conversion and switching to the Mercurial and Bitbucket -based development. It is not just repository conversion, there are things like revision numbers in changelog, tagging and branching practices etc etc.

I think we need to have one or two day break from the SVN use when we do the conversion, like we had when we converted from CVS to SVN. But many things to test and decide first.